If I had to guess, I would say the GP wants to express that the mass of consumers acts in uninformed silly ways, and with such people local-first has a very low adoption rate, because they usually don't spend a thought about their digital foot/fingerprint or who really owns their data or how they do their personal computing and whether they are independent of anyone else in their personal computing. That there is this huge part of our society, that again and again creates incentives for enshittification.

Is it really a huge part of our society or is it just one that megacorporations amplify as loud as they can because that's how they want people to behave.

That's a good question actually. I don't know for sure. I tend to think, that for many people things like the Internet are mysteriously working and they have no idea how it works, and as a consequence rarely they go further putting up requirements of how it should work for them. They just accept how things online are, status quo of that which is most visible. Ergo complete victims of the network effects in their social bubbles.

But before it wasn't as easy to create them every few days.